14:24:46 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:24:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-rif-irc 14:24:53 zakim, this will be rif 14:24:53 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 36 minutes 14:25:10 Meeting: RIF Telecon 3-Jun-08 14:25:17 Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie 14:25:44 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0001.html 14:25:58 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 3 June RIF Telecon Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0001.html 14:26:17 rrsagent, make minutes 14:26:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:26:27 rrsagent, make logs public 14:27:36 agenda+ Admin 14:27:41 agenda+ Liason 14:27:49 agenda+ F2F10 debrief 14:27:55 agenda+ Action review 14:28:04 agenda+ Publication planning 14:28:09 agenda+ F2F11 14:28:13 agenda+ UCR 14:28:16 agenda+ AOB 14:47:16 csma has joined #rif 14:47:38 list agenda 14:53:39 Harold has joined #rif 14:58:50 Hassan has joined #rif 14:59:29 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 14:59:36 +??P19 14:59:40 zakim, ??P19 is me 14:59:40 +csma; got it 15:00:21 +[NRCC] 15:00:57 josb has joined #rif 15:01:19 + +39.047.101.aaaa 15:01:38 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:02:08 mdean has joined #rif 15:02:22 +[IBM] 15:02:24 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:02:29 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:02:33 +ChrisW; got it 15:02:58 +??P38 15:03:02 +Mike_Dean 15:03:08 +[IBM] 15:03:10 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 15:03:12 +LeoraMorgenstern 15:03:28 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:03:30 +Harold; got it 15:03:42 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:03:42 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:03:58 +??P52 15:04:02 +Sandro 15:04:10 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:04:10 On the phone I see csma, Harold, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Hassan (muted), StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, ??P52, Sandro 15:04:18 zakim, ??P52 is me 15:04:18 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:04:29 zakim, mute me 15:04:29 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:04:38 sure 15:04:40 I can scribe 15:04:48 Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern 15:04:56 zakim, next item 15:04:56 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:05:11 list agendum 15:05:14 zakim, list agendum 15:05:14 I don't understand 'list agendum', ChrisW 15:05:17 zakim, list agenda 15:05:17 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 15:05:18 1. Admin [from ChrisW] 15:05:18 2. Liason [from ChrisW] 15:05:20 3. F2F10 debrief [from ChrisW] 15:05:20 4. Action review [from ChrisW] 15:05:21 5. Publication planning [from ChrisW] 15:05:21 6. F2F11 [from ChrisW] 15:05:22 7. UCR [from ChrisW] 15:05:24 8. AOB [from ChrisW] 15:05:28 drop agendum 6 15:05:36 Chris: I am removing F2F11 from the agenda, since there are some things that need to be figured out further. 15:05:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/att-0154/rif-minutes-20052008.html 15:05:48 PROPOSED: Accept minutes of 5-20-08 15:05:58 +1 15:06:15 RESOLVED: Accept minutes of 5-20-08 as published on mailing list 15:06:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/att-0184/2008-05-06-rif-minutes.html 15:06:52 PROPOSED: Accept minutes of 5-06-08 15:07:02 RESOLVED: Accept minutes of 5-06-08 15:07:30 PaulVincent has joined #RIF 15:07:37 Chris: agenda amendment: In place of discussing F2F11, we'll discuss some public comments. 15:07:42 agenda+ public comments 15:07:51 (Note to self: change dates of minutes to European format.) 15:07:59 next item 15:08:12 Liaison: Nothing new 15:08:23 next item 15:08:31 Zakim, no, now it's closed. 15:08:31 I don't understand 'no, now it's closed', LeoraMorgenstern 15:08:37 next item 15:08:47 There is nothing new for liaison 15:08:49 next item 15:09:25 sorry, just dropped; will call in again., 15:09:40 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F10 15:09:50 +LeoraMorgenstern.a 15:10:06 next item 15:10:11 F2F10 15:10:24 Csma: we passed quite a number of resolutions 15:10:42 on BLD and other docs 15:12:01 resolved: to publish BLD and SWC (Owl-rdf document) as last call, 15:12:14 ucr as 3rd wd, dtb and prd as first wd 15:12:43 (get from wiki page) 15:13:02 all of this subject to some editorial changes 15:13:56 labelled a number of features in BLD as being at risk, such as equality being in the head (of rules) 15:14:42 resolved to ask for 1-year extension. 15:14:53 along with a work plan describing objectives. 15:15:11 +Gary_Hallmark 15:15:14 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2008 15:15:58 plan is to bring bld, swc, fld, dtb, to rec 15:17:22 sandro: we need to get people to work on prd. Not clear we have the staffing for this. 15:17:51 csma: hopefully first published wd on prd will get people working on this. 15:18:04 Both Gary and AdrianP are interested to co-edit PRD. 15:18:08 +1 yes I should get involved in PRD... 15:18:27 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:18:27 On the phone I see csma, Harold, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Hassan (muted), StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern.a, Gary_Hallmark 15:18:32 next item 15:19:30 ACTION 517 on Jos to review FLD --- FLD not out yet 15:20:28 Action 515 moved pending review 15:20:59 csma: question on Gary's action for 514 15:21:15 Action 515 completed pending review 15:21:55 action 513 completed 15:22:02 +??P57 15:22:09 action 512 to review axel's change to dtb is continued 15:22:31 action 510, 511 on csma are continued. (One is done but must be redone.) 15:22:50 action 509 on Adrian and Gary: continued (version to be reviewed not out yet.) 15:23:45 action 507 on csma to align syntax table between prd and bld awaiting for bld syntax to be frozen by Harold. 15:24:11 action 506 on Michael to make editorial changes to dtb with links to bld ... not due for tomorrow. 15:24:24 All Michael's actions due in 2-3 weeks. 15:25:08 Action 505 on Sandro continued. 15:25:12 June 15 15:25:23 June 16 15:25:24 Action 504 on Harold dontinued. 15:25:32 s/dontinued/continued/ 15:25:57 all actions on Harold are continued 15:26:24 action 495 on Adrian ??? 15:27:05 action 492 on csma to review changes to swc or dtb (?) continued 15:27:28 action 491 on jos completed. 15:28:10 Where is the url for the action tracker???? 15:29:03 Does anyone have the url for the action tracker/listing? 15:29:30 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/ 15:30:32 action: sandro to review explanatory text in section 2 swc 15:30:32 Created ACTION-518 - Review explanatory text in section 2 swc [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-06-10]. 15:31:03 action 480 on jos to add explanatory text to swc and reply to Dan's comment : completed. 15:31:13 csma: Jos, did you get an answer from Dan? 15:31:18 jos: Yes (?) 15:31:34 I did not get an answer yet 15:31:44 action 475 to look into mime registration on sandro: continued 15:32:17 action 454 on Chris: continued 15:32:35 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:32:35 On the phone I see csma, Harold, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Hassan (muted), StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern.a, Gary_Hallmark, 15:32:38 ... PaulVincent 15:33:03 action 152 continued 15:33:07 next item 15:33:11 Publication planning 15:33:48 chris: publication plan is on main page 15:34:08 csma: what are new deadlines for all the documents? 15:34:27 csma: is swc available now for review? 15:34:33 jos: yes 15:34:46 jos: available for review with exception of proofs and appendix. 15:35:05 s/proofs and appendix/proofs in the appendix 15:35:20 jos: should be done in by the end of the week 15:36:15 jos: can only be frozen after bld and prd are finalized, because there are dependencies. 15:36:33 s/prd/dtb/ 15:36:34 jos: but reviews can be done before then, subject to the constraints of the dependencies (marked in editor's notes) 15:37:06 jos: I am trying to get Axel to review the proofs. 15:38:04 s/dtd/dtb 15:38:41 next item 15:40:16 sandro: not problem with Adrian's reorganization of text 15:40:29 sandro: but there are some use cases that I just don't like. 15:40:41 sandro: some have broken links, some have other problems. 15:40:51 sandro: in some cases, I have suggested (in an email) alternate wording 15:41:47 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Requirements 15:41:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Requirements 15:42:24 ChrisWelty has joined #rif 15:42:57 Topic: 5.1.1 Implementability 15:43:15 I think we're meeting this. 15:43:40 q? 15:43:58 Topic: 5.1.2 Semantic precision 15:44:56 BLD passes. 15:45:06 rif-core part unknown. 15:45:10 csma: no problem with this, either, except for the fact that there's no real Core --- there's BLD now. 15:45:41 sandro: will there be text saying how we're doing on these requirements? 15:46:02 sandro: (agreeing with csma) may be expected, but we don't have to do them. 15:46:02 -Gary_Hallmark 15:46:10 csma: but we must have something to say in case someone asks. 15:46:27 +Gary_Hallmark 15:46:27 sandro: where there's something to be said, it would be nice to make a comment. Must discuss with Adrian. 15:46:57 sandro: let's annotate the requirements with respect to where we are right now, maybe? 15:47:00 chris: I disagree. Not a good idea at all. 15:47:03 csma: yeah, maybe 15:47:14 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:48:03 chris: should make the doc crisper and shorter. To discuss in this doc how bld meets the requirements puts too much focus on bld. But to put it into the bld doc would make that unnecessarily long. 15:48:53 Topic: 5.1.3 Extensible Format 15:48:54 topic 5.1.3. Extensible Format 15:49:56 It must be possible to create new RIF dialects which extend existing 15:49:56 dialects (providing backward compatibility) and are handled 15:49:56 gracefully by systems which support existing dialects (providing 15:49:56 forward compatibility). 15:50:30 change to: (thus providing ...) 15:50:34 sandro: I think my suggested change to the text of this requirement, pasted above, is clearer. 15:51:05 Surely "fwd compatibility" is a requirement on the translator, not on RIF itself? 15:51:19 csma: will propose resolution next week to change text as suggested. 15:52:36 sandro: (answering Paul) No, this is a requirement on RIF to say what RIF processing software does. 15:53:15 Re 5.1.3: In some sense, we now often specialize (FLD/FOL+ -> BLD -> Core) rather than extend (Core -> BLD -> FOL). 15:53:17 Paul: sounds like a recommendation, not an enforceable requirement. 15:54:49 Paul: really just a practicality issue, not a fundamental disagreement of the desirability of this requirement. 15:55:03 -1 - vote now 15:55:24 sandro: let's just vote on this now, unless anyone wants more time. 15:55:32 PROPOSED: change text of 5.1.3 to: It must be possible to create new RIF dialects which extend existing dialects (thus providing backward compatibility) and are handled gracefully by systems which support existing dialects (thus providing forward compatibility). 15:55:40 csma: no one seems to want more time. 15:55:46 +1 15:55:46 +1 15:56:03 +1 15:56:19 +1 15:56:21 +1 15:56:25 RESOLVED: change text of 5.1.3 to: It must be possible to create new RIF dialects which extend existing dialects (thus providing backward compatibility) and are handled gracefully by systems which support existing dialects (thus providing forward compatibility). 15:56:30 Topic: 5.1.4 Translators 15:56:45 seems fine 15:56:51 doing fine 15:56:57 csma: we're doing fine with this. 15:57:04 Topic: 5.1.5 Standard components 15:57:23 doing okay, I think 15:57:56 csma: no problem, except for the fact that we don't have such an experience wiht implementation 15:58:20 harold: (was it harold?) we are having this experience with ??? and doing fine. 15:58:34 Topic: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage 15:58:56 csma: this requirement is problematic. We don't have this completed. 15:59:27 sandro: my thought on what this means is that RIF plus extensions must cover all widely deployed rules languages. 15:59:28 Re 5.1.4: We successfully use W3C's existing XSV validator for BLD's XML schema. 15:59:36 and RDF/OWL extensions 16:00:19 Harold, do you mean re 5.1.5? 16:00:55 Yes, sorry. 16:01:09 Thanks, Harold. 16:01:21 s/Re 5.1.4:/Re 5.1.5:/ 16:02:23 Drop 5.1.6? Or mark it as unattainable? 16:03:01 Gary: need to weaken the text of 5.1.6 16:03:21 Gary: but certainly 5.1.4 and 5.1.6 overlap 16:03:25 PROPOSED: drop coverage requirement 5.1.6, since we don't have RIFRAF. 16:03:36 sandro: the point of 5.1.6 is that we wanted to enumerate what we wanted to cover. 16:03:48 sandro: but we're not doing that. We don't have RIFRAF. 16:04:43 PROPOSED: drop coverage requirement 5.1.6, since we are not doing RIFRAF. 16:04:46 +1 16:04:52 +1 16:04:53 +1 16:04:55 -0 16:04:59 -.5 16:05:10 +1 16:05:23 That is, I think it's hard to attain, but I don't like the idea of dropping it entirely. 16:05:25 + .5 16:06:11 If we did have RIFRAF, we'd be forced to test the existing RIF on selected languages. 16:06:29 Gary, function symbols nested to any fixed depth only (hence, no recursion into these nestings) can theoretically be 'flattened'. 16:06:32 And very likely, gaps in RIF would show up. 16:07:52 PROPOSED: Change text of 5.1.6 to: RIF standard dialects must cover the major shared features of all widely-deployed rule languages. 16:08:15 +1 16:08:15 Sandro, will there be an enumeration of "all widely-deployed rule languages"? 16:08:20 no, LeoraMorgenstern 16:08:41 So, how meaningful is this requirement? 16:08:53 Will there be an enumeration of "major shared features"? 16:08:58 Jess and Prolog 16:09:01 :-) 16:09:12 Jess and Prolog and FOL. 16:09:15 Harold, yes, and Skolem functions, too. But lists won't work... 16:09:32 Suggestion: RIF standard dialects must not exclude any rule language feature in any extensively deployed rule language ... 16:09:46 Jess and Prolog and F-logic :-) 16:10:27 sandro: should be : if there's a feature in at least two widely deployed rules languages, we should cover it. 16:10:43 sandro: but if it's only in one such language, maybe we don't need to cover it. 16:11:06 PROPOSED: For this next draft of UCR, change 5.1.6 to note that we're still working on this. 16:11:32 csma: perhaps we should work on the text of this resolution for next week. (Comment made before Sandro's proposal above.) 16:11:42 +1 and I can take an action to attempt suitable wording... 16:11:55 how about something like: To achieve widespread adoption, RIF dialects should cover shared features from many well-known rule languages 16:12:18 csma: we don't want to refer to RIFRAF anyway 16:12:23 s/anyway/anymore 16:12:50 +1 drop reference to RIFRAF 16:12:53 csma: any objection to dropping any reference to RIFRAF? 16:13:01 +1 to drop RIFRAF 16:13:08 csma: no objections, so that's what we'll do. 16:13:16 PROPOSED: For this next draft of UCR, add an editor's note to 5.1.6 to note that we're still working on how to define a coverage requirement. (unless we come up with some consensus text before publication) 16:13:45 +1 16:13:48 +1 16:13:51 +1 16:13:52 +1 16:13:53 +1 16:13:54 +1 16:13:55 +1 16:13:59 RESOLVED: For this next draft of UCR, add an editor's note to 5.1.6 to note that we're still working on how to define a coverage requirement. (unless we come up with some consensus text before publication) 16:14:10 Topic: 5.2.1 Compliance model 16:14:11 :) 16:14:37 The RIF specifications must provide clear conformance criteria, 16:14:37 defining what is or is not a conformant RIF implementation. 16:15:25 its not a rephrasing, but it is more accurate for what we have 16:15:40 PROPOSED: rephrase 5.2.1 to: The RIF specifications must provide clear conformance criteria, defining what is or is not a conformant RIF implementation. 16:15:54 +1 16:16:12 chris: it's not a rephrasing. It's a different requirement. 16:16:27 (shrug about "rephrasing". re-articulate? :-) 16:16:42 RESOLVED: rephrase 5.2.1 to: The RIF specifications must provide clear conformance criteria, defining what is or is not a conformant RIF implementation. 16:16:44 +1 16:16:48 csma: passed by lack of objection 16:17:02 Topic: 5.2.2 Default behavior 16:17:54 as well as I understand this, it's part of fallbacks / forward compatibilty. 16:19:25 sandro: ah -- I see what this would be useful 16:19:27 Topic: 5.2.3 Different semantics 16:19:35 all good 16:19:43 Topic: 5.2.4 Embedded comments 16:19:46 all good :-) 16:19:53 Topic: 5.2.5 Embedded metadata 16:19:56 all good :-) 16:20:06 Topic: 5.2.6 Limited number of dialects 16:20:45 prefer "small" number 16:21:12 PROPOSED: in 5.2.6 change "limited" to "small" 16:21:12 csma: objection to "limited" --> "small" ? 16:21:21 +1 16:21:27 chris: I don't see much of a difference 16:21:35 Topic: 5.2.7 OWL data 16:22:21 sandro: take out reference to phase 1 semantics 16:22:44 chris: phase 1 is defined in the charter 16:23:02 sandro: we've abandoned that 16:23:17 suggest changing Phase 1 to RIF 16:23:37 chris: in fact, we haven't. 16:23:42 next item 16:23:59 Actually: this should be the public comments discussion. 16:24:12 Topic: Public Comments 16:24:22 chris: when we responded to Peter's comments from last year, he responded to our response, and we never responded to that response. 16:24:55 Looking at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group 16:25:54 Action on Jos to respond to Peter. 16:26:02 ACTION: jos to start work on response to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PPS3 16:26:02 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos 16:26:02 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) 16:26:03 Jos: can look at it by next week, but not necessarily to respond . 16:26:12 ACTION: jdebruiij2 to start work on response to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PPS3 16:26:12 Sorry, couldn't find user - jdebruiij2 16:26:23 ACTION: jdebruij2 to start work on response to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PPS3 16:26:23 Created ACTION-519 - Start work on response to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PPS3 [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-06-10]. 16:26:27 ONE EYE 16:26:40 Topic: 5.2.8 RDF data 16:26:45 Topic: 5.2.9 Dialect Identification 16:27:48 Gary, finitely nested lists could also be flattened, somehow like this: p(a,[1,[2],3],c) => p(a,%L1,1,%L2,%L1,2,%L3,3,c), where %Li 'indexes' list elements. 16:28:02 sandro: would like to drop this, since it's confusing. 16:28:55 chris: I know what we meant by it. We don't want to run into what we ran into with OWL. 16:29:04 then, it is in both dialects 16:29:42 chris: regarding integration with RDF. 16:30:09 sandro: if an implementation is labeled, and the label is used in deciding whether to process, then documents in the intersection are rejected when they should not be. 16:30:22 PROPOSED: extend meeting by 10 minutes 16:30:24 let's continue next week: 16:30:32 -1 16:30:35 -1 16:30:38 -1 16:30:39 -1 16:30:40 -1 16:30:43 -1 16:30:56 +1 adjourn 16:30:57 -Gary_Hallmark 16:30:58 -Harold 16:31:01 -Hassan 16:31:03 -josb 16:31:03 -Mike_Dean 16:31:05 -StellaMitchell 16:31:06 zakim, list attendees 16:31:07 csma: restart at 5.2.9 Dialect Identification next week. 16:31:07 -PaulVincent 16:31:08 As of this point the attendees have been csma, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Hassan, StellaMitchell, Sandro, IgorMozetic, Gary_Hallmark, 16:31:10 ... PaulVincent 16:31:12 -IgorMozetic 16:31:25 Regrets: AdrianPaschke DaveReynolds MichaelKifer MohamedZergaoui 16:31:31 rrsagent, make minutes 16:31:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-rif-minutes.html ChrisWelty 16:31:33 +39.047.101.aaaa=josb 16:32:03 -LeoraMorgenstern.a 16:32:04 -LeoraMorgenstern 16:33:36 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:33:36 On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, Sandro 16:36:03 -ChrisW 16:36:05 -Sandro 16:36:07 -csma 16:36:08 SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended 16:36:10 Attendees were csma, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Hassan, StellaMitchell, Sandro, IgorMozetic, Gary_Hallmark, PaulVincent 16:53:19 csma has left #rif